Talk:Lulu/@comment-26420279-20160905085020/@comment-26203093-20160926081925
Oh, what a treat, I didn't know there was a response. A few things: First, I'm not actually interested in trying to convince you; I'm just here explain why I won't accept basically any of what you're trying to pass as evidence. Which leads me to 2: Authority. Let's start off with why I don't accept you as an authority. " The non-existence of proof, however, isn't the proof of non-existence. The god argument? Really? "you can't prove it DIDN'T happen."? Well I hope you stick to your guns on the validity of this argument because I'll be pointing those guns directly at you for my own entertainment. I'll be applying it liberally to make my point instead of extrapolating, but really? You seem to think that just because something has a webpage dedicated to it that you can use it as an authoritarian argument. I mean - Clearly that's enough for you; And again, I can't muster the effort to convince you otherwise. In the meantime here's my requirements to be considered applicable for authority: Experience, official acknowledgement, reputation, research, collaboration. Or any combination of the 5. So... Do you have any evidence that person making the edit on the wiki had precious experience creating terms and definitions? Has he done so for official sources to use as reference? Is he at least known for being capable? Can you link me to the research involved and sources used? Are the multiple people collaborating in an official capacity, and are their methods visible? Basically the closest we can get is the last one. Except the methods visible show definitions are superseded one after another but always considered official. Now maybe, people claiming to be right until one of them stops editing and caring counts as colaboration for somebody. Not for me. And there's no other context to the edits. Meaning we have no idea if the term is the correct one, just that it's the last one. Which is why - Again, how about I just put up and edit and see what happens. Here's a question: do you know how words are defined and put up for official review for an actual dictionary? I'll be blunt: not like this. Does this mean they're wrong? No. It just means I have no reason to assume its basis is well-considered, and plenty of reason that to think it was edited until some combination of lack of interest and lack of offense was what settled the term. And you can't prove it didn't happen. On the other end, here's something else antonymic to the definition of authority and why I basically can no longer accept what you say as true. You're an untrustworthy source: 900 edits to the page isn't 900 edits to the term, but you're trying to sell it as such. You're falsifying evidence for your argument, so I've officially no reason to believe you've any intention of being honest. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just means I have no reason to believe you. Now; You can make the argument it's unlikely that 4 sites would have same definition. It isn't. Popularity is self-perpetuated, and you can't prove they didn't just copy them from the wiki - even if not directly and rephrased. Or taken from each other. I will however highlight this: Agnilam: " An ability that increases a champion’s stat much like a sport-enhancement drug." Summoner school: " An ability that increases a champion’s stat much like a sport-enhancement drug." Now, again. I'm not saying they definitely DID copy/paste without any research of their own or that this means they're wrong. I'm just saying those two terms seem kind of similar as if to suggest that. I mean they COULD have reached the exact same conclusion independently of each other. And did you know there's been court cases on the copying and similarities between dictionaries' definitions as the majority effort has been in acquiring the information - not the printing of it? Yeah, fun fact. It's almost like I know a thing or two about language history as if I'm an actual authority and consultant at Merriam-Webster or something. But hey, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so you should just take my word for it. Honestly, there's not much difference in what we're doing, you're trying to amass a wall of evidence through authority that your term is correct. Which kind of relies on me accepting the authority, which I do not. I'm amassing a wall of people actually using the term. Now I said from the get-go that the term has been bastardized over the years, and I don't actually like how it's gone from straight stat boost to any kind of power boost, but here's a few things to note about language: 1. it's a cultural thing. It pretty much exemplifies culture. As such, culture decides the language. That's how new words appear. As such, how the average person uses it is how it is defined, unless there's peripheral specific cases such as, for example, legal and medical terms. And that is how it is changed. The term 'literally' was misused so much it was reviewed and edited fairly recently. Addendum: "used for emphasis while not being literally true." 2. Language is used for communication. Feel free to call your dog a bear-cub because the non-existence of proof, however, isn't the proof of non-existence, but nobody's going to understand you, agree with you, or even probably put up with you. In essence, an average misuse of the word with a high enough sample size has more authority than you and your links. Why? Because there's no authority without an author. Do you know the inventor of the term? No. And even then, has he made an official definition, himself? No. And even then, has the term not altered over time? No. Then the definition is, for all intents and purposes, public domain. You and your links have no authority outside of as justification for your personal preference. And finally, you put focus on the temporary part, I didn't. Again, the term has been bastardized, and there is a minority using it for passives. Beyond the minority, however is the number of people using buffs on others as a term for steroids. Look through the usage list - you know, the one you provided - in fact: fuck - feel free to find even more links to discussions on steroids, and count the number of people qualifying lulu's e a steroid. I counted 0. Maybe you'll eventually find it. But until then, again, Literally no one I know have used it as such. Now I feel like I need to emphasize how loosely I'm using the term 'know', since you seemed to think that meant "friends". Everyone I know = 'every person I've witnessed'. Now, of course, as we all know The non-existence of proof, however, isn't the proof of non-existence, however, so, of course, since you can't disprove that that most people don't consider lulu's E a steroid, but we have a pretty hefty list of people using TEMPORARY SELF CAST POWER BOOSTS as the primary example of a steroid - then here's me explaining my stance, and me happily using that as the status quo. Oh - and at no point did I say friends. That was your invention, I was using every encounter and experience I've ever had on the topic, which is, as I've mentioned before, more official when the public determines the definitions than what 8 people edited on a wiki. of course, you've tried to imply whomever edited the wiki last is representative of "the internet". Am I really going to have to explain how that's wrong? So no, you didn't use the" the word in consensus with majority of community." I did; The consensus is through usage of the average person, not those 8 people. So I too, have nothing against the jargon of you and your 8 moderator friends, but when we're talking on an public forum, please use the public definition that the, and you literally can't prove me wrong here, millions of others using the term in that capacity. Or hey, since you aren't willing, I took the liberty of changing the definition like I said. Feel free to not tamper with and give it a fair shot and hey, you can even use it. Or hey; don't. If you've had people use it as such, feel free. Or still convinced that the wiki is the arbiter, well, use it for now, anyway. Or - hey, here's a fun idea, edit it because you're angry with me, or disagree, and prove how unreliable a wiki system is for the pursuit of objectivity. This is the probably the closest thing the term has had to a discussion anyway, so you couldn't be more wrong than the previous definitions. Eh; can't be bothered to edit the copy/pasted text. Hope your eyes survive, though.